CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   Social Issues (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=243190)

EdwardDolan March 13th 14 02:23 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

It doesn't matter if trails are lightly trafficked or heavily trafficked.
The users are doing different things which conflict. I have posted many reports
in this thread which clearly illustrate the conflicts in great detail. These
reports contradict your views but you are deaf and blind to what hikers insist
upon - that trails be used for the quiet enjoyment of nature and not as a race
course by cyclists.


No, you've simply stated, again and again, that they are incompatible. However, you've also then posted videos showing trails being shared without any issue.


There is little or no conflicts if the trails are empty of all except bikers. When hikers and equestrians are present, there is always conflict of purpose. That conflict is there even if YOU can’t see it.

You keep stating 'hikers insist upon' ... and forgetting that I, and many other mountainbikers, are also hikers too. What you're really saying is "I insist upon" and, quite frankly, what you insist upon is of no great import to anything since you don't own the trails.


You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker. In short, you are not an adult. Who the hell pays any attention to juvenile opinions except maybe on the subject of hubcaps and hood ornaments. Again, it doesn't matter who owns the trails. All that matters is that trails be managed sensibly by adults who have some judgment on what trails are for.

You are going in circles. You posted videos then decided you

didn't like what they showed so you want to refer to some amorphous 'other' ones
on YouTube. Your case is completely shot. Why do you keep posting
'evidence' that doesn't support your propositions ?

Whatever is posted on this thread by me must be taken in
context. It is the preponderance of the posts that matter, not any particular
post about any particular aspect. I do not do any editing of the reports I post.
Every post of mine in this thread is detrimental in the main to the issue of
bikes on trails. That is all that matters to me. Either get on something
important or get lost.


Perhaps that's what you intended but what you actually posted was not at all detrimental since it showed sparse use and no conflict ... directly contradicting your proposition. If your 'evidence' doesn't support what you're saying then that is not immaterial since it fatally undermines your whole case.


If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers can see that even if you can’t.

Power; exactly the same (1 human power = approx 750 watts max)

Speed; Approximately 2x on average
Weight; Approx 15% higher for biker
Noise; equivalent
Environmental impact; equivalent

The facts, as usual, don't support you Ed.


Your facts are as screwy as your morality. Mechanical
advantage makes all the difference with respect to power and speed. Noise and
environmental impact also are NOT the same as anyone with half a brain knows
full well.


Ed, I'm not giving you another physics lesson. We already covered this and you don't know the physics and are unwilling to spend even a second reading enough to become conversant with the basics.


You do not understand or appreciate mechanical advantage. Talk about basics!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] March 13th 14 12:40 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
The only person who never gets anything wrong is the person who
does nothing !* You claimed, many times, thousands of collisions.*
There aren't and you couldn't produce any data to backup your claim.*
That's not being literally minded, it's calling you on spouting rubbish.

99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity
unless someone is killed. I am going by reports from various email lists that I
am receiving daily. That in fact is what this thread is about. The only one
spouting rubbish here is you. Get on something important or get
lost!


More statistics Ed ... "99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity". You made that up !

You are, I know because you said, participating in email lists and forums with people who all have an axe to grind regarding mountainbiking. Unsurprisingly, they don't bother to send details of all the non-collisions, only the actual and near ones. It is therefore very easy to conclude, if one is foolish, that this is the majority case. It's not.

This IS important. What you are doing is simply stating your prejudices despite the fact that there is no data to back them up. I am not going to let you get away with such poor argumentation. If you say something is the case then I am going to ask you to justify it objectively because, otherwise, you repeatedly spout nonsense in the hope that no-one will actually call you on it.

Blackblade[_2_] March 13th 14 06:42 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
No, you've simply stated, again and again, that they are
incompatible. However, you've also then posted videos showing trails being
shared without any issue.

There is little or no conflicts if the trails are empty of all except
bikers. When hikers and equestrians are present, there is always conflict of
purpose. That conflict is there even if YOU can't see it.


So, Ed, this is a conceptual conflict which exists in YOUR head (and possibly some other unreconstructed nutcases). Naturally, since I can't see into your head, I don't see the conflict. I deal in facts, not the perceptions and bizarre fantasies of the foolish.

If there are really a lot of near collisions then I would do something about it ... and I have helped build trails to separate cycling/hiking traffic .... but I simply don't accept your fundamental point that trails cannot be shared under any circumstances.

You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker.


Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as "idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham Lincoln etc etc then the world would be a much poorer place.

In short, you are not an adult. Who the hell pays any attention to juvenile
opinions except maybe on the subject of hubcaps and hood ornaments. Again, it
doesn't matter who owns the trails. All that matters is that trails be
managed sensibly by adults who have some judgment on what trails are
for.


Your view of what the trails are for matters very little to me nor, I suspect, the vast majority of other trail users. Your judgement, based as it is on supposition, prejudice and flawed intuition, is highly suspect.

If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS
conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers can see
that even if you can't.


We're back to what's going on in your head again aren't we Ed ?

Your facts are as screwy as your morality. Mechanical


advantage makes all the difference with respect to power and speed.

Noise and

environmental impact also are NOT the same as anyone with half a brain

knows

full well.


Ed, I'm not giving you another physics lesson. We already

covered this and you don't know the physics and are unwilling to spend even a
second reading enough to become conversant with the basics.

You do not understand or appreciate mechanical advantage. Talk
about basics!


Mechanical advantage is simply gearing Ed. The power output doesn't alter. Higher gearing results in less torque but more motion for a given output.

EdwardDolan March 13th 14 10:50 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

The only person who never gets anything wrong is the person who

does nothing ! You claimed, many times, thousands of collisions.
There aren't and you couldn't produce any data to backup your claim.
That's not being literally minded, it's calling you on spouting rubbish.


Edward Dolan wrote:

99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity
unless someone is killed. I am going by reports from various email lists that I
am receiving daily. That in fact is what this thread is about. The only one
spouting rubbish here is you. Get on something important or get
lost!


More statistics Ed ... "99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity". You made that up !


You are, I know because you said, participating in email lists and forums with people who all have an axe to grind regarding mountainbiking. Unsurprisingly, they don't bother to send details of all the non-collisions, only the actual and near ones. It is therefore very easy to conclude, if one is foolish, that this is the majority case. It's not.


This IS important. What you are doing is simply stating your prejudices despite the fact that there is no data to back them up. I am not going to let you get away with such poor argumentation. If you say something is the case then I am going to ask you to justify it objectively because, otherwise, you repeatedly spout nonsense in the hope that no-one will actually call you on it.


99% of all phenomena under the sun never gets reported. It is only deaths occur that you get some attention from the media. I am reporting what commonly does not get reported elsewhere. It is personal stuff based on experiences by individuals who have no ax to grind except their unpleasant encounters on the trails.

Blackblade is devoid of common sense, but his main problem is that he does not like anything that runs counter to what he wants to do, namely, to ride his bike on hiking trails. Too bad for for him there are so many that object to what he wants to do. Everything I say is backed up by thousands of reports from actual experiences. These experiences are numerous enough and broad enough to count for much more than any so called “data” – whatever the hell that is.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 13th 14 11:12 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

No, you've simply stated, again and again, that they are

incompatible. However, you've also then posted videos showing trails being
shared without any issue.


Edward Dolan wrote:

There is little or no conflicts if the trails are empty of all except
bikers. When hikers and equestrians are present, there is always conflict of
purpose. That conflict is there even if YOU can't see it.


So, Ed, this is a conceptual conflict which exists in YOUR head (and possibly some other unreconstructed nutcases). Naturally, since I can't see into your head, I don't see the conflict. I deal in facts, not the perceptions and bizarre fantasies of the foolish.


It is not a conceptual conflict, but an actual conflict. The fact that you don’t see it counts for nothing. Enough others see it exactly as I see it. Your facts are irrelevant to the problem which is a conflict of usage related to purpose. You need to ask yourself ... what is a trail for?

If there are really a lot of near collisions then I would do something about it ... and I have helped build trails to separate cycling/hiking traffic ... but I simply don't accept your fundamental point that trails cannot be shared under any circumstances.


If you are building trails that separate hikers and bikers, then you have already conceded the argument. Why the hell should “circumstances” matter?

You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker.


Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as "idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham Lincoln etc etc then the world would be a much poorer place.


You take risks for mere thrills. Amazing that you don’t see how dumb that is.

In short, you are not an adult. Who the hell pays any attention to juvenile
opinions except maybe on the subject of hubcaps and hood ornaments. Again, it
doesn't matter who owns the trails. All that matters is that trails be
managed sensibly by adults who have some judgment on what trails are
for.


Your view of what the trails are for matters very little to me nor, I suspect, the vast majority of other trail users. Your judgement, based as it is on supposition, prejudice and flawed intuition, is highly suspect.


Ask yourself ... what are trails for?

If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS
conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers can see
that even if you can't.


We're back to what's going on in your head again aren't we Ed ?


The problem is what is going on in your head. You think trails are there for your thrills and spills amusement. A few trips to the wood shed is needed for some correction to that kind of thinking.

Your facts are as screwy as your morality. Mechanical


advantage makes all the difference with respect to power and speed.

Noise and

environmental impact also are NOT the same as anyone with half a brain

knows

full well.


Ed, I'm not giving you another physics lesson. We already

covered this and you don't know the physics and are unwilling to spend even a
second reading enough to become conversant with the basics.

You do not understand or appreciate mechanical advantage. Talk
about basics!


Mechanical advantage is simply gearing Ed. The power output doesn't alter. Higher gearing results in less torque but more motion for a given output.


Of course power output matters since it determines speed, distance and ease of movement. Mechanical advantage puts you in a different universe, one that is antithetical to walking in more ways than one.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 16th 14 03:36 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

Blackblade considered Wed, 12 Mar 2014
05:23:56 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

And you're entitled to your viewpoint. I am similarly

entitled to disagree and completely ignore you. It's really nothing to do
with you.


Edward Dolan wrote:

I will not feel any sympathy for you when you end up paralyzed
from the neck down like that other idiot Christopher Reeves
(Superman).


I'm not asking you to. Why would I care ? I feel sorry for you; that you can't just enjoy your own activity and let others enjoy theirs.

Take your god damn ****ing risk taking (mountain biking)
anywhere except on my sacred trails!


They're not yours Ed.

Well, the alternative is fascism (or nanny stateism). Adults

are entitled to risk their own necks.

Stupid is as stupid does. Anyone who risks their necks for a
thrill is not an adult. Such an idiot is a juvenile.


Your opinion, you're welcome to it. It's wrong but ...

Stop ranting ... it doesn't get any more convincing for multiple

repeats.

Repetition is at the heart of all learning.


It's an element, true, but despite repeated trouncing of your premises you still aren't learning so what should we do with you ?

Better to be a sociopath who at least wants people to live out
their natural lives than a merchant of death like you who knowingly leads
cyclists to their deaths by promoting mountain biking on hiking
trails.


Better to actually go and do something and live your life ... and to not get so incredibly agitated that others want to live their lives differently.


One of the interesting facts I discovered from watching documentaries

on the television is that far more hikers need to be rescued by
helicopter (often at risk to the lives of the aircrew) or mountain
rescue volunteer services (also at risk to themselves) than cyclists,
even on routes that are used fairly equally by both. Mostly broken
ankles and legs from simple slips or stumbles, but not infrequently
that can lead to severe falls, and being stranded on the mountain in
conditions that were not expected or prepared for.
And it's quite common for the alert to be raised by a cyclist, who is
able to more quickly reach an area with cellphone reception (patchy in
the mountains) to summon aid.

Thanks for posting content!

It is true that hikers can occasially get into trouble, but it is almost always as a result of them doing something they should not have been doing (the rescues you see on TV are mostly for mountain climbers, not hikers). That is not the case with cyclists. They are doing exactly what their “sport” dictates and it invariably causes them to injure themselves or even to result in their deaths. Blackblade probably thinks he is doing something that is safe, but it is inherently unsafe. Very professional mountain bikers come to bad ends just like very professional mountain climbers. The reason they come to bad ends is because what they are doing is INHERENTLY unsafe. The are taking risks whether they realize it or not.

By the way, one of the most tragic of all accidents is one that happened to a large group of young hikers getting caught in a slot canyon in southern Utah, not foreseeing a flash flood that occurred as a result of rainfall many miles away. Those who had to pick up the pieces said it was the worst case of slaughter they had ever seen. But an accident like that is one in a million.

Of course, vandalman and dolan would deny them that assistance.


No, I would assist them to the best of my abilities. I do not want anyone to be injured or killed. It is Blackblade who is the merchant of death. He promotes mountain biking as something that is safe and fun to do. I want cyclists to have their own trails specially designed for wheels. I am not a purist like Mr. Vandeman who does not want wheels on anything except already constructed roads. Unless and until we get a fix on human population the world is going to hell everywhere in the natural realm. There is no cure for what ails us. As Pogo once famously said ....”we have the met the enemy and he is us”. The way things are going we will end up living in a world where our only companions will be cockroaches and rats.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] March 17th 14 10:49 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
So, Ed, this is a conceptual conflict which exists in YOUR head
(and possibly some other unreconstructed nutcases). Naturally, since I
can't see into your head, I don't see the conflict. I deal in facts, not
the perceptions and bizarre fantasies of the foolish.

It is not a conceptual conflict, but an actual conflict. The
fact that you don't see it counts for nothing. Enough others see it exactly as I
see it. Your facts are irrelevant to the problem which is a conflict of
usage related to purpose. You need to ask yourself ... what is a trail
for?


The person writing the article agreed that there was no conflict with mountainbikers and you've stated that you don't care about the environmental aspects in this instance. Therefore, the only conflict is that you don't want mountainbikes to be there ... which is, axiomatically, a perception not a reality for anyone else.

As to what a trail is for, that's an easy one, it's for people to either get from point A to point B or to enjoy the journey of doing so ... possibly both.

If you are building trails that separate hikers and bikers,
then you have already conceded the argument. Why the hell should "circumstances"
matter?


What a ridiculous statement ! Circumstances don't matter !!!

It's this kind of messianic idiocy that makes me worry for your sanity. In the real world, you have to look at circumstances; lots of traffic ... probably need more trails and to separate different traffic types; low traffic ... probably fine to share the trail.

You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker.


Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as

"idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham Lincoln etc etc
then the world would be a much poorer place.

You take risks for mere thrills. Amazing that you don't see
how dumb that is.


So did they ! Look up their life histories. It's an attitude of mind.

If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS
conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers

can see
that even if you can't.


We're back to what's going on in your head again aren't we Ed

?

The problem is what is going on in your head. You think trails
are there for your thrills and spills amusement. A few trips to the wood shed is
needed for some correction to that kind of thinking.


What is going on in my head and how I enjoy the trails is none of your business. I'm not the one insisting that your mere presence completely wrecks my enjoyment of the trails.

Mechanical advantage is simply gearing Ed. The power output

doesn't alter. Higher gearing results in less torque but more motion for a
given output.

Of course power output matters since it determines speed,
distance and ease of movement.


Power output is the SAME ! How many times. Usain Bolt, Chris Hoy and Ian Thorpe all produce approximately the SAME power output. You are confusing power with torque and gearing.

Mechanical advantage puts you in a different
universe, one that is antithetical to walking in more ways than
one.


No Ed, if you are 'self powered' you are fundamentally in the same world. The order of magnitude difference occurs once you allow external power sources.

Blackblade[_2_] March 17th 14 04:33 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
This IS important. What you are doing is simply stating your
prejudices despite the fact that there is no data to back them up. I am
not going to let you get away with such poor argumentation. If you say
something is the case then I am going to ask you to justify it objectively
because, otherwise, you repeatedly spout nonsense in the hope that no-one will
actually call you on it.

99% of all phenomena under the sun never gets reported. It is
only deaths occur that you get some attention from the media. I am reporting
what commonly does not get reported elsewhere. It is personal stuff based on
experiences by individuals who have no ax to grind except their unpleasant
encounters on the trails.


It may well be. Still doesn't mean that it's the majority experience or common.

Blackblade is devoid of common sense, but his main problem is
that he does not like anything that runs counter to what he wants to do, namely,
to ride his bike on hiking trails. Too bad for for him there are so many that
object to what he wants to do. Everything I say is backed up by thousands of
reports from actual experiences. These experiences are numerous enough and broad
enough to count for much more than any so called "data" - whatever the hell that
is.


I'm the one who is willing to compromise based on circumstances. You're the one who can't even countenance a bike on the same trail as you in case it disturbs your, clearly fragile, equilibrium.

Blackblade[_2_] March 17th 14 04:39 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
Blackblade probably thinks he is doing something that is safe, but
it is inherently unsafe. Very professional mountain bikers come to bad ends just
like very professional mountain climbers. The reason they come to bad ends is
because what they are doing is INHERENTLY unsafe. The are taking risks whether
they realize it or not.


Blackblade knows the risks of death and injury and that mountainbiking, whilst not risk free, is BELOW Rugby, driving a car, American Football, Skiing, Snowboarding, Skateboarding, Motocross etc etc (I could go on).

Since I've quoted the backup to defend those statistics many times how about, if you disagree, you justify how dangerous you think it is with some hard data instead of just blathering.

It is Blackblade who is the merchant of
death. He promotes mountain biking as something that is safe and fun to do.


I do, because it is fun and relatively safe and because the data backs me up in that assertion.


EdwardDolan March 18th 14 03:49 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Blackblade probably thinks he is doing something that is safe, but
it is inherently unsafe. Very professional mountain bikers come to bad ends just
like very professional mountain climbers. The reason they come to bad ends is
because what they are doing is INHERENTLY unsafe. The are taking risks whether
they realize it or not.


Blackblade knows the risks of death and injury and that mountainbiking, whilst not risk free, is BELOW Rugby, driving a car, American Football, Skiing, Snowboarding, Skateboarding, Motocross etc etc (I could go on).


Since I've quoted the backup to defend those statistics many times how about, if you disagree, you justify how dangerous you think it is with some hard data instead of just blathering.


All the activities you list are risk taking activities when carried to an extreme. Mountain biking does not need to be carried to an extreme. People are injured and killed just doing very modest riding on trails. Blather beats statistics every time because most folks have some common sense, something that you totally lack.

It is Blackblade who is the merchant of
death. He promotes mountain biking as something that is safe and fun to do.


I do, because it is fun and relatively safe and because the data backs me up in that assertion.


My reports from the field refute your data.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com